KJV w/Strong# - In the beginning <746> was the Word <3056>, and the Word <3056> was with God <2316>, and the Word <3056> was God <2316>.

NRSV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

TEV - Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God.

Joh 1:1 - KJV, NRSV, and most English translations' wording: the word was God - or (Revised English Bible) wording: what God was, the Word was - or TEV (1976 edition) wording: the Word was the same as God

Newman and Nida (A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John, New York: United Bible Societies, 1980, pages 8-9) comment on the Greek grammatical construction known elsewhere as anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative, which is addressed within the so-called Coldwell's Rule:

He was the same as God appears in most translations as "the Word was God" [Revised Standard Version (RSV), JB, NAB]. NEB renders by "what God was, the Word was" and Mft "the Logos was divine" {Goodspeed (Gdsp) "the Word was divine"]. Zurcher Bible (Zur) has "the Word was God," with a footnote indicating that this means the Word possessed a divine nature.

These many differences in translation are due to the Greek sentence structure. In this type of equational sentence in Greek (A=B) the subject can be distinguished from the predicate by the fact that the subject has the article before it and the predicate does not. Since "God" does not have the article preceding it, "God" is clearly the predicate and "the Word" is the subject. This means that "God" is here the equivalent of an adjective, and this fact justifies the rendering he (the Word) was the same as God. John is not saying that "the Word" was God the Father, but he is affirming that the same divine predication can be made of "the Word" as can be made of God the Father and so "the Word" can be spoken of as God in the same sense.

Many languages have two quite different types of equational sentences. One type indicates complete identity in such a sentence as "my husband is John Smith" or "John Smith is my husband," that is, the two parts of the sentence are completely equivalent. In the second type, however, one may say "John Smith is a teacher" but cannot say "A teacher is John Smith." "A teacher" merely qualifies "John Smith" and indicates the class of persons to which he belongs. The latter is precisely the type of equational sentence which occurs in this verse. "God" completely characterizes "the Word," and all that is true of God is true of the Word. This does not mean, however, that the two elements can be inverted, and that one can translated "God was the Word" any more than one can one can make "Love is God" an inversion of the biblical statement "God is love." It is difficult for some people to recognize that this equational sentence in Greek belongs to the second class because in the predicate the term "God" refers to the unique object. Since this type of equational sentence may be misleading with "God" in the predicate, it is better to translate it "The Word was the same as God" or "Just what God was that is what the Word also was."

Donald F. Winslow (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, NY: Garland Publishing, 1998, page 687) comments on the Logos, the Word, in the Gospel of John:

Theologians of varying, and often competing, persuasions appealed to John 1:1-14 as the scriptural warrant for their views. Yet the precise meaning of logos in this text has been open to a wide spectrum of interpretations.

"In the beginning was the Word" clearly points to some kind of cosmic preexistence; "the Word was with God" suggests a divine relationship; "and the Word was God" (or, as the NEB translates, "what God was, the Word was") connotes divine status; "all things were made through him [the Word]" implies a special function in the economy of creation; "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" intimates a special relationshiop between Christ and humankind. Most of these assertions as to the status, function, and relationship of the Logos are sustained, nuanced, and further explicated in the susequent chapters of John's Gospel (e.g., 1:15; 5:17-18; 8:58; 12:45; 14:7-11; 17:5); but never again after the Prologue, in the whole of the Johannine corpus, does the term "Logos" appear as a synonym for Christ (unless "the word of life" in 1 John 1:1 can be so construed; cf. Rev. 19:13). Rather, John's characteristic designation for Christ is "Son," and thus for God is "Father." The papable difference between God/Word and Father/Son terminology posed difficulties for future theologians.

Robert M. Grant (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, NY: Garland Publishing, 1998, page 472) comments:

Both Athenagoras and Theophilus [both writing around 180 A.D.] are willing to call the Son or Logos the Mind of the Father (Clement calls the Logos the Son of the Father-Mind). He is the "first being begotten by the Father" (Athenagoras, Leg. 10), as he is for Justin... The explicit doctrine of the Trinity in Athenagoras is the oldest that we know... Although Teophilus, a contemporary of Athenagoras, speaks of God and his Word and his Wisdom as a "triad" (Autol. 2.15), he says that if man is added to the triad it becomes a tetrad; evidently, he was not thinking in Trinitarian terms.

Note also Psa 82:6:

I said, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;...

Biblical passages that relate to man or Christ as the image/likeness of God (or reflecting God's nature, qualities, and power) shed considerable light on the meaning of John 1:1c. To read the full text of some of those biblical passages, browse the topic "Image/Likeness of God" in the webpage at http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/image.htm.

To read an additional commentary on John 1:1c ("the Word was God" or "the Word was the same as God") and a further explanation of the Greek grammar affecting its translation, browse http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa029.htm.